Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
I was reading the Feb 2010 copy of QST at dinner this evening.
And right there in the "Up Front" section was a wonderful
article about "How I defied the CCR I signed when I bought my
condo and put up an antenna in contradiction to the rules I
agreed to."

Do we all have to act like having an FCC grant (license)
somehow makes us above the law?

Sooner or later, the homeowner associations are going to
catch on about bird houses, flag poles and the like and
just simply write into the rules, "No transmitting or
receiving equipment."

And we'll have brought it on ourselves by constantly showing
our inability to follow the rules.

It would be useful to read the specific rules. The article doesn't say
the rules prohibit antennas, it just says they *concern* antennas. It
is very possible that the rules don't prohibit antennas outright, just
restrict their appearance. Obviously W0ES's arrangement complies with
the aesthetic requirements of the rules!

================================================== ==================

While one has to live with the rules one agrees with... one also has to
suspect the widespread deployment of such rules is destructive to our
hobby. An existing ham may or may not have the option of selecting a
home without CC&Rs when looking for a place to live. A young person
considering taking up ham radio is not going to be having much luck
getting his parents to move so he can have some antennas -- he's
probably going to give up on ham radio & take up Linux instead.

It's not difficult to see other hobbies suffering from this aesthetic
intolerance as well. Amateur auto mechanics, for one. People who are
*not* hams are beginning to get fed up with this as well.

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66